[SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY.

TANTUICO] 1

68. QUIRINO Special Administrator, Estate of Raquiza, and Estate Castellvi vs.  In his will, Don Juan gave the usufruct of his entire estate (including the 1/3
HON. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE, and GOINGCO, Administrator, Estate Alfonso share in the estate of Don Alfonso) to Carmen.
Castellvi o Carmen succeeded as Administratrix of the estate of Don Alfonso.
G.R. No. L-58797 | 1988-04-25 PADILLA  Don Alfonso's will was admitted to probate.
Digest by: RAMOS  Carmen filed a petition to probate the will of her late husband, Don Juan.
Carmen’s Estate:
TOPIC: Procedure in Resolution of Claims  Upon Carmen's death, a petition for intestacy of Carmen was filed by her
daughters.
DOCTRINE: o Petition dismissed for lack of interest on the part of the petitioners.
1) Advances of the inheritance to the heirs, irregular.  Quirino, a creditor, petitioned the court to set the case for hearing, stating his
The Court cannot sanction the procedure of allowing this disbursement as an interest and willingness to advance the publication expenses.
advance of the inheritance of the heirs of the decedent because this would, in the o The court appointed Quirino as Special Administrator.
first place, be an irregular procedure, and, in the second place, it gratuitously  Claims of Jesus T. David: Jesus T. David alleged that he was a creditor of
assumes that the estate of the deceased will end up with a net residue in favor of Carmen M. Castellvi with a lien on her fees as administratrix of the estate of
the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi. Don Alfonso Castellvi and on her share in the estate as one of the heirs.
2) Claim of creditor against an heir, not proper. Natividad’s Estate:
David alleged that he was a creditor of Carmen (Administrator of Don Alfonso) with  Natividad (daughter of Don Alfonso) died testate, leaving as estate her
a lien on Carmen’s fees as administratrix and on her share in the estate as one of inherited 2/3 share in the estate of Don Alfonso.
the heirs. The claims cannot be entertained in this settlement proceedings of the o Quirino was appointed Special Administrator.
estate of Don Alfonso, but in the settlement proceedings of the estate of Carmen. going back to Don Alfonso’s Estate:
 Within 6 months following the last publication of notice to creditors, the
SUMMARY: following claims were received:
 Don Alfonso died; one of his heirs is his brother, Don Juan who became o Dismissed by the court only after 40 years for failure to prosecute:
administrator of his estate.  Melquiades C. Valencia - 14.00
 Don Juan died; his wife Carmen became the administrator of the estate of Don  Irene Cordero - 1,409.22
Alfonso.  Alejandro Lopez - P1,190.10
 Carmen died. o Approved for payment and paid: Ma. Nieves Toledo - 2,605.09, 4,500.00
 David, creditor of Carmen, wants a recover payment of Carmen’s credit from o Record fails to disclose the disposition: creditor Juan Castellvi - 8,404.00,
(a) Carmen’s fees as administrator of Don Alfonso’ estate and (b) Carmen’s 343.12, 940.01
inheritance from Don Juan. o T o t a l - P19,405.54
 SC: David’s claim denied. See Ruling 2 above. Quirino, Special Administrator of Estate of Natividad contends:
 after having disposed of the only valid claim against the estate of Don Alfonso
FACTS: Castellvi, the probate court should have proceeded with the settlement and
Don Alfonso’s Estate: distribution of the estate, as the extent and value of his estate had already
 Don Alfonso died; last will: been determined.
o 2/3 to adopted daughter Natividad.  however, the probate court did not do this but, instead, entertained
o 1/3 of his estate to his brother, Don Juan, who was made administrator. controversial and purely money claims, not against the estate but against the
 Notice to creditors was duly published in the newspaper. instituted heirs, of the estate, which have dissipated the value of the estate.
Don Juan’s Estate:  claims for services allegedly rendered to the Carmen should have been charged
 Don Juan was married to Carmen. to her 12% fees as Administratrix, and not directly against the estate.
(GO2) 2018 - 2019
 [SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | ATTY. TANTUICO] 2

 the respondent probate court should have refrained (but did not) from issuing PROBATE COURT ISSUED ORDERS RE:
orders for the release and disbursement of funds from their respective 1) Attorney's Fees of Cuadrajento Mendoza
undistributed shares in the estate of Don Alfonso, and that the claimants could 2) Claims of Exequiel Floro
reiterate their respective claims before the appropriate probate courts. 3) Claims of Attorneey’s Fees of Juan F. Gomez
4) Attorney's Fees Of Antonio V. Raquiza
But, whether or not Natividad's original 2/3 share in the estate of Don Alfonso 5) Claims of Jesus T. David
Castellvi still belongs to her estate or has been assigned and conveyed completely
to her children by Antonio Raquiza, will not alter the conclusion that the claim in RULING OF SUPREME COURT
issue, which is P250,000.00 for services rendered either to Natividad as heir of Don
Alfonso or to her children as her assignees, is not a proper claim against the estate Attorney's Fees of Cuadrajento Mendoza
of Don Alfonso Castellvi.  The propriety of the award is now beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to alter,
the same having been approved by the Probate Court.
Just as in the claim for attorney's fees of Atty. Juan F. Gomez for services rendered  The attorney's fees was fixed with the conformity of the heirs of Don Alfonso
to the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi, the Court cannot sanction a procedure whereby Castellvi.
this amount of P250,000.00 shall be considered as an advance against the share of  Periodic payments had also been made thereon, without objection from the
either Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza or her children-assignees in the estate of Don heirs of Don Alfonso Castellvi.
Alfonso Castellvi, because this would be an irregular procedure and it gratuitously Claims of Exequiel Floro:
assumes that there will be a net residue of Don Alfonso's estate in favor of either  These claims have also been settled under circumstances similar to those
Natividad CastellviRaquiza or her children by Antonio V. Raquiza. relating to claim number one.
Claims of Attorneey’s Fees of Juan F. Gomez:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED insofar as the respondent court's orders dated  This claim is expressly recognized as chargeable to the heirs of Don Juan
7 September 1981 and 2 October 1981 are concerned. Said orders are AFFIRMED, Castellvi; thus not properly cognizable settlement of the estate of Don Alfonso
being orders implementing earlier orders which have long become final and Castellvi.
executed with the conformity of the heirs of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi.  The amount of P30,000.00 erroneously disbursed to Atty. Gomez as
However, petition is GRANTED insofar as the orders of the respondent court, dated representation and transportation expenses in connection with services
5, 15 and 20 October 1981, respectively are concerned. Said last three (3) orders rendered to the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi should be returned to the estate of
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Don Alfonso Castellvi.
 The Court cannot sanction the procedure of allowing this disbursement as an
Attorneys Juan F. Gomez and Antonio V. Raquiza are hereby ordered to return to advance of the inheritance of the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi, which entails
the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, the respective amounts of P30,000.00 and eventually deducting the amount from the final share of the heirs of Don Juan
P250,000.00 they have received from said estate. Castellvi in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, because this would, in the first
place, be an irregular procedure, and, in the second place, it gratuitously
The Court hereby orders the final settlement, termination and closure of this unduly assumes that the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi will end up with a net residue
delayed estate proceedings, Sp. Proc. No. 6824, "Testate Estate of the late Don in favor of the heirs of Don Juan Castellvi.
Alfonso de Castellvi" where the shares of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza and Juan
Castellvi have only to be finally determined, quantified and distributed to said Attorney's Fees of Antonio V. Raquiza:
instituted heirs or their respective estates.  This claim should be settled in the estate of Natividad Castellvi-Raquiza as it is
admittedly for services rendered to her in transactions involving her share in
OTHER ISSUES the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi.

(GO2) 2018 - 2019

 Thus, the claim cannot properly be recognized and settled in the estate of Don
Alfonso and the P250,000.00 earlier but erroneously released should also be
returned to the Testate Estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi.

Petitioner Quirino claims that the deceased Natividad retains her entitlement to the
two-thirds (2/3) of the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi by virtue of her institution as
heiress, by will, to said inheritance.

The Raquizas contend that she (Natividad) had assigned and conveyed all her share,
rights and interest in the estate of Don Alfonso Castellvi, to her children by Antonio
V. Raquiza. This is in turn contested by Quirino's assertion that Natividad had
disinherited her husband and all her said children under a holographic will duly
probated.

NEITHER this Court, at this stage, nor the respondent probate court that should
adjudicate these conflicting postures which, in the final analysis, involve the
ultimate question of whether Natividad (or her estate) remains the owner of what
originally was bequeathed to her by Don Alfonso Castellvi in his will.

A resolution of this question demands a full ventilation of respective positions

(GO2) 2018 - 2019